What you say holds for anything that is constructed out smaller parts. I can construct a new car engine out of parts, but the difference is that it actually does something. A new engine would also be patentable. Computer programs "do" things, a story doesn't "do" anything. In terms of the machine or transformation test, software transforms input into output. Being a software engineer, I think most software patents are bad because they are obvious, trivially extending on prior work. However, I could be persuaded of their utility if I saw one that represented significant ingenuity on the author's part.

A new engine isn't patentable unless it is innovative, and uses entirely new methods.

A new model of a gasoline-burning internal combustion engine isn't patentable. Because it uses entirely different principles, a fundamentally new engine design like this might, however, be patentable:

I agree that most software written isn't new content, just small extensions. However, I wouldn't let that stand in the way of a patent being filed for a real innovation in software.

I can't imagine one. The original maths is cooked up in universities, that is the innovation, and it isn't software.

Example: The concept of something like "modelling" is many decades old (e.g. watch the movie "Apollo 13" to see an early simulator in action). The maths involved is simply orbital mechanics, and is even older. Making the simulator is simply applied mathematics, it isn't "inventing" anything.

"I agree that most software written isn't new content, just small extensions. However, I wouldn't let that stand in the way of a patent being filed for a real innovation in software."

Can you provide an example?

If not, you can borrow mine:

Quantum computing. A practical quantum computer would be innovative/novel in countless ways, with far reaching implications. The hardware for such a machine is no doubt innovative by just about everyone's standards.

Now we turn our attention to quantum computer software, and again we end up resorting to mathematics to lead the way. One of us developers will *happen* to be the first to write a quantum algorithm to do X. The act of being the first is "novel", but this is no indication that the algorithm isn't "obvious" to typical quantum developers, it's merely an indication that no one has ever tried before. It could very well be an inevitable algorithm which any quantum developer will be able to derive once practical quantum computers become relevant.

"In the past, there have been individuals that have chimed in with their own thoughts on how to workaround the S3TC patent situation for open-source drivers, but none of them have been viable in legal terms. This new possible "solution" is a brand new texture compression algorithm that is simpler than S3TC and should not be infringing upon the S3 Texture Compression intellectual property."

"The compressor and decompressor here are licensed under a license that gives you all freedoms you will ever need (namely, the MIT license). In particular, the MIT license allows you to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense or sell the software, provided you keep copyright notices intact.

In the unlikely case you need freedoms not covered by the MIT license, feel free to send me a message, and we can negotiate something.

Furthermore, you are free to reimplement S2TC on your own, and can use the format specification on this site as a guide."